Fathers and daughters construction of fatherhood in one low-income, semi-rural, Coloured community

(1)

Frederika Scheffler

Thesis presented in full (100%) fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Psychology in the faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Stellenbosch University

Supervisor: Dr. Elmien Lesch December 2014

(2)

1 Declaration

By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch university will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification.

Date: ……… Signature:……….

(3)

2 Abstract

Fatherhood literature in South Africa agrees that a look beyond the absent father phenomenon is necessary and that the focus should rather be on the potential of biological and social fathers who are present in their children’s lives. Although fathers are important in the healthy development of both boys and girls, the fathering of adolescents daughters has received limited research attention. For these reasons, this study focused on fathers and their adolescent daughters in one low-income, semi-rural, Coloured community in the Cape Winelands district of the Western Cape, South Africa. The objective of this exploratory study was to investigate fathers’ and adolescent daughters’ constructions of fatherhood. The study was informed by social constructionism and utilised a social constructionist informed grounded theory methodology. Forty-two interviews were conducted with fourteen fathers and adolescent daughters. They were interviewed separately and 29 hours and 47 minutes of interview material were obtained. Data collection, transcription, and analysis took place concurrently. Five conceptual categories were identified: Both the fathers and the daughters focused on the importance of the provider role and daughters’ obedience. Their relationship was spoken of in terms of having an understanding, while the expression of affection appeared to accompany special occasions only. Fathers also emphasised their wish for their daughters to have a better future and spoke at length about their efforts and strategies for ensuring this. Lastly, fathers’ expected daughters to do as they were told and not to follow fathers’ bad examples (e.g. alcohol abuse). The core category focused on the underlying assumptions inherent in the dynamic of the relationship, namely an hierarchical and patriarchal gender order. There seemed to be evidence of both affirmation of and resistance against the patriarchal gender order. Although it seemed that the traditional masculine and feminine ideology continue to hold sway, the presence of New Father discourse suggests the beginning of a shift towards more equitable gender relations and therefore the possibility of

(4)

3 change. Recommendations for future research and interventions based on this analysis were also discussed.

(5)

4 Opsomming

Binne die Suid-Afrikaanse literatuur oor vaderskap is daar ooreenstemming dat daar nie hoofsaaklik op die afwesige vader fenomeen gekonsentreer moet word nie, maar dat die potensiaal van biologiese en sosiale vaders wie wel teenwoordig in hulle kinders se lewe is, ook ondersoek moet word. Alhoewel vaders belangrik in die gesonde ontwikkeling van beide seuns en meisies is, is die navorsing oor die vaderskap van adolessente dogters beperk. Vir hierdie redes sal die studie fokus op vaders en hulle adolessente dogters in ŉ lae-inkomste, semi-landelike, Kleurling gemeenskap in die Kaapse Wynland distrik van die Wes-Kaap, Suid-Afrika. Die doelwit van hierdie ondersoekende studie was om die vaders en adolessente dogters se konstruksie oor vaderskap te ondersoek. Die studie was ingelig deur sosiale konstruksionisme en het ŉ ingeligte sosiale konstruksionistiese gegronde teoretiese metodologie gebruik. Twee-en-veertig onderhoude is afsonderlik gevoer met veertien vaders en hul adolessente dogters. Nege-en-twintig ure en 47 minute se onderhoudmateriaal is verkry. Data insameling, transkripsie en analise het gelyktydig plaasgevind. Vyf begripskategorieë was geïdentifiseer: Beide die vaders en dogters het gefokus op die belangrikheid van die pa se voorsienersrol. Verder het hul oor hul verhouding gepraat in terme van ŉ “verstandhouding” waarin die vader se outoritere posisie en die dogter se gehoorsame posisie vanselfsprekend aanvaar is. Die woordelikse en fisiese uitdrukking van liefde het net sekere spesiale geleenthede vergesel. Vaders het ook die klem geplaas op hulle begeerte vir hulle dogters om ŉ beter toekoms te hê en het breedvoerig hulle pogings en strategieë bespreek om dit toe te sien. Laastens, het vaders van hul dogters verwag om hul vaders se woordelikse opdragte en leringe te volg en hul nie-navolginswaardige voorbeelde (byvoorbeeld alkoholmisbruik) te ignoreer. Die kern kategorie van die gegronde teorie wat in hierdie studie ontwikkel is, belig die onderliggende aannames inherent in die dinamika van die vader-dogter verhouding, naamlik ŉ hiërargiese en vaderregtelike geslagsorde. Dit blyk

(6)

5 uit die narratiewe van vaders en dogtersl asof daar beide ŉ bevestiging van en ŉ weerstand teen die vaderregtelike geslagsorde is. Al het dit voorgekom dat die tradisionele manlike- en vroulike ideologie steeds aan die orde van die dag is, kan die aanwesigheid van die Nuwe Vader diskoers dui op ŉ verskuiwing na ŉ meer billike geslagsverhouding en daarom ook die moontlikheid van verandering. Aanbevelings vir toekomstige navorsing en ingrypings, gebaseer op hierdie analise, word ook bespreek.

(7)

6 Acknowledgements

I thank God for His grace and mercy, without which none of this would have been possible. To my supervisor, for all her patience and unwavering support, thank you. Your guidance and advice saw me through the dark and difficult times.

I thank my interviewers and transcribers for their assistance and promptness. I would probably still be working on it without your help.

My friends and family, your pep talks, unceasing belief, and the willingness (mostly) to be an occasional sounding board for my thoughts, I thank you from the depths of my soul. The coffees and lunches preserved my sanity and inspired me to always try harder and do better. Lastly, to my husband, I thank you for your support and understanding. For commiserating the setbacks and celebrating the successes. I am deeply grateful for being able to share them all with you.

(8)

7

Chapter one: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Fatherhood is a fluid concept which changes over time and varies across contexts (Gregory & Milner, 2011; Magaraggia, 2012; Makusha, Richter, Knight, Van Rooyen, & Bhana, 2013; Shirani & Henwood, 2011; Williams, 2008). As different groups of people (including cultures, ethnicities, religions, ideologies) have held different or varying concepts of fatherhood (Makusha, et al., 2013), fatherhood research should therefore be grounded in a specific time and context. Furthermore, although paternity may be a biologically or genetically verifiable fact, a father is more than just a progenitor. Research indicates that social fatherhood (i.e. not biological) can fulfil the same function and be as beneficial as biological fatherhood (Richter & Morrell, 2006). Therefore, it is argued that fatherhood is not just a biological status, it is also a social role (Richter & Morrell, 2006).

Just as fatherhood has changed over time and place, so too has the operationalization of paternal involvement (Lamb, 2000). Previously, time-use methodologies were a popular quantitative approach to fatherhood, and paternal involvement was then conceptualised as time spent with the child. During the 1970s the focus shifted to a more qualitative aspect of fatherhood, namely nurturance (Lamb, 2000). This focus is known as the “New Father,” movement and emphasises a father’s active involvement in childcare (Lamb, 2000). Such paternal involvement is reported to have several benefits for children, mothers and fathers. Children with involved fathers have greater self-esteem and interpersonal skills, and are less likely to exhibit behaviour problems or delinquency (Coley, 2003; Kerr, Capaldi, Owen, Wiesner, & Pears, 2011; King & Sobolewski, 2006; Vogt Yuan & Hamilton, 2006). Paternal involvement also lays the groundwork for better romantic and marital relationships later in life (Carslon, 2006; Flouri & Buchanan, 2002; Madhaven & Roy, 2011; Makusha, Richter, &

(12)

11 Bhana, 2012; Peacock, et al., 2008; Richter, et al., 2012). The benefits of paternal involvement for mothers generally revolve around the lessening of stress and tension caused by father absence or lack of involvement in childcare (Richter, et al., 2012). There are also several benefits for fathers themselves, which include greater psychological and emotional well-being, as well as greater marital satisfaction (Richter, et al., 2012).

However, many South Africans may not experience the benefits associated with paternal involvement as many South African children do not live with their fathers. According to the General Household Survey of 2010, only 33% of children were co-residing with both biological parents. This number has decreased from 2002 to 2010 from 38% to 33% (Meintjies & Hall, 2012). Of the 33% not co-residing with both biological parents, 39% lived with their biological mothers only, 3% lived with their biological fathers only, and 24% did not live with either biological parent. Lastly, 27% of all children in South Africa were living with neither of their biological parents (Meintjies & Hall, 2012). South African fathers’ absence from the home can partly be ascribed to migrant labour, delayed marriage due to the greater independence of women and the increasing incidence of gender-based violence (Posel & Devey, 2006). The decline in marriage (Zwang & Garenne, 2008) and the increase in premarital fertility (Zwang, 2004), as well as an increase in teenage pregnancies (Kaufman, De Wet, & Stadler, 2001; Varga, 2002; Varga, 2003) also contribute to the current state of affairs. Not only is the marriage rate declining, people are also choosing to marry later in life (Hosegood, McGrath, & Moultrie, 2009). The decline in marriage rates coincides with an increase in non-marital partnerships and consequently children born outside of wedlock (Hosegood, et al., 2009; Harrison & O’Sullivan, 2010). An additional contributing factor to fathers’ absence may also be the “father unfriendliness” of South African legislation. This legislation is viewed as based on a too narrow conceptualization and validation of fatherhood,

(13)

12 and is linked to the continued preference for granting full custody to mothers over fathers (Gallinetti, 2006; Hochfeld, 2007; Kaganas, 1994; Seekings, 2003).

Interest in fatherhood increased dramatically in the 1970s and is still on the rise, globally and in South Africa (Rabe, 2007; Seward & Richter, 2011; Speldnaes, Moland, Harris, & Sam, 2011; Van den Berg, et al., 2013). Fatherhood research is, however, still limited in several ways. Most of the international literature regarding fathers have tended to consider the phenomenon from the mothers’ perspective (Zhou, Sandler, Millsap, Wolchik, & Dwason-McClure, 2008; Johnston, Hommersen, & Seipp, 2009; Jaccard, Kurtines, Silverman & Pina, 2009). Other studies included fathers but did not focus on them (Comer, et al., 2009; Slep & O’Leary, 2007; Thurston & Phares, 2008). Those studies that did focus on fathers, especially variations in father involvement, concentrated on either resident or divorced fathers of older children (Cabrera, Mitchell, Ryan, Shannon & Tamis-LeMonda, 2008). Most of the studies that sought to include fathers, reported difficulty with recruitment and attrition (Helfenbaum-Kun & Ortiz, 2007; McNeil & Tiano, 2005). Locally, a number of recent studies have researched fatherhood from the perspectives of fathers and sons (Bodenstein, 2008; Ratele, Shefer, & Clowes, 2012; Swartz & Bhana, 2009; Speldnaes, et al., 2011). What is missing is research regarding fatherhood in the father-adolescent daughter relationship. One important reason for focusing on fatherhood in this dyadic context is that it is a primary site of gender construction. (De Lange, Mitchell, & Bhana, 2012; Jewkes, Penn-Kekana & Rose-Junius, 2005).

To date, the majority of the fatherhood literature in South Africa has focused on either White South African middle-class people (e.g. Morison, 2013) or the poor Black or African South African population (e.g. Ratele, et al., 2012). Most of this research also focuses on the negative aspect of fatherhood in especially the poor Black or African South African

(14)

13 population, namely that of absent or ineffectual fathers (Hosegood & Madhaven, 2012; Ratele, Shefer, & Clowes, 2012; Swartz & Bhana, 2009). This negative focus on fatherhood in South Africa results in a skewed perspective which in its turn has a negative impact on policy and legislation, as well as on intervention design. This also creates a gap in the body of literature on fathers in South Africa, insofar as the approach to and understanding of fatherhood is limited by perspectives that focus on fathers’ shortcomings or absence only and excludes alternative conceptualizations of involvement. This gap needs to be addressed in order to effectively design interventions aimed at strengthening or otherwise improving upon fatherhood practices, building on what is already present, rather than focusing only on what is “wrong” (e.g. Clowes, Ratele, & Shefer, 2012; Hosegood & Madhaven, 2012; Ratele, et al., 2012; Swartz & Bhana, 2009). Furthermore, little research exist on Coloured1, low-income fathers as they have been subsumed under the Black or African South African population group (Ratele, et al., 2012). This incorporation is problematic as it can be argued that Coloured people have a different historical and current social context than other South African population groups (Field, 2001; Salo, Ribas, & Lopes, 2010).

Historically, the Coloured population has been defined as members of a particular racial group who were located very specifically within and between the major racial categories of Black and White in the South African apartheid social order. The category originated as a “symbolic and literal dumping ground for the hybrid peoples, who did not quite ‘fit into’

1

The term “Coloured” was used in the Apartheid era and is still used today to designate persons of mixed racial descent. Although this usage is contentious and many argue for the need to move past it, it is still used to refer to a heterogenous group of South African people and should therefore be acknowledged. I want to stress that I do not seek to reinforce Apartheid ideology. by using this term.. Like Field (2001) and Salo, et al., (2010) the aim is to focus attention on and acknowledge the specific cultural, political, and economic history and context of this group in South Africa.

(15)

14 other pure apartheid classifications” (Field, 2001, p. 217). The Coloured population accounts for 9% of the total population of South Africa (Statistics South Africa, 2013), residing primarily in the Western Cape. Coloured communities are strongly associated with low-income communities. Many live in poor conditions, which are commonly coupled with other adverse social conditions (Myers, et al., 2013). This includes poverty, unemployment, lower education levels, overcrowding, poor health facilities and welfare, which further complicate matters as it makes them vulnerable to economic, social and emotional distress (Lesch & Engelbrecht, 2011). Such distress manifest in substance abuse, breakdown in family structure, as well as incidences of interpersonal violence (Jewkes, et al., 2005). These manifestations of distress is further compounded by the high prevalence of alcohol abuse among this population, to the extent that Herrick (2012) argues that it is best classified as a “disaster.” This state of affairs is the legacy of the Apartheid era “dop system” whereby farmworkers especially in the Western Cape Winelands district were paid for their labour in wine allotments and other goods (London, 1999). This had several implications for the general health and well-being for the population group (Crome & Glass, 2000), not least of which is ensuring the continuation of the cycle of poverty as a large portion of income is invested in obtaining alcohol, leaving less money available for food, clothes, and other necessaries (Herrick, 2012). Another aspect of the legacy of this system was that alcohol is still considered to be a form of currency, especially where men can “buy” sexual favours from women by buying alcohol for them (Watt, et al., 2012). The risks associated with this is increased risk of HIV infection, rape, and continued undervaluing and commoditization of women (Watt, et al., 2012).

(16)

15 Traditional gender roles and relations are also dominant in this population group (Rabie & Lesch, 2009; Speldnaes, et al., 2011), characterised by male dominance and female subservience, and gendered division of labour in the home. Furthermore, according to Hendricks, Swartz, and Bhana (2010) fatherhood is the primary or most readily available source for affirming masculinity in impoverished communities, due to the restricted access to other resources such as money. Men who are in such marginalised positions within society may see begetting children as one of the few legal options whereby they can attain an adult masculine identity, without necessarily being able to “be” a father for the children they beget (Marsiglio & Pleck, 2005; Richter & Morrell, 2006; Speldnaes, et al., 2011). However, as Clowes, et al., (2012) caution, negative discourse about South African fathers should be challenged. It is therefore important to explore both the strengths and limitations of fatherhood in these communities with the view to contribute to knowledge that will assist in developing and strengthening this potential resource. This study specifically focused on the fatherhood constructions and experiences of fathers and their adolescent daughters living in a low-income, semi-rural, Coloured community in the Western Cape.

1.2 Organisation of the thesis

Chapter two entails a discussion of social constructionism as the meta-theoretical framework of this study. In line with the social constructionist grounded theory method, chapter three presents an initial review of fatherhood literature. The social constructionist grounded theory methodology is discussed and outlined in chapter four. Chapter five presents a discussion of the conceptual categories and its underlying focussed codes that were identified in the analysis. The core category is discussed in chapter six, and the thesis concludes with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study as well as some recommendations for future research and interventions in chapter seven.

(17)

16

Chapter two: Theoretical framework

According to Charmaz (2006) the theoretical framework, together with the literature review, is the ideological site in which the researcher situates her work. It offers a specific way of approaching and ultimately understanding the phenomenon under study. This study is informed by a social constructionist informed grounded theory methodology and in this chapter my understanding of social constructionism is presented.

2.2 Social constructionism

The social construction of fatherhood is highlighted by various authors (Gregory & Milner, 2011; Magaraggia, 2012; Makusha, et al., 2013; Shirani & Henwood, 2011; Williams, 2008). It is therefore appropriate to use social constructionism as a broad theoretical departure point for a study on fatherhood. Social constructionism acknowledges and emphasises the historical, socio-political and localised contexts in which people make sense of, experience and live fatherhood. This chapter provides a brief overview of the development, basic principles, critique, and research implications of social constructionist theory.

2.3 History and development

Interest in social constructionism increased greatly in the 1970s and some argue (e.g. Burr, 1995) that social constructionist theorising in psychology began with Gergen’s (1973, cited in Burr, 1995) paper, Social psychology as history. It continued to gain in influence with the work of Gergen, Shotter, Harré, Morawski and Bruner (cited in Raskin, 2002), among others, and increasingly became a preferred alternative to traditional psychological approaches (Sarbin & Kitsuse, 1994). Durrheim (1997) argued that the traditional psychological approach to research as based on positivist-empiricist methods is not appropriate to

(18)

17 psychological inquiry due to its neglect of the meaningful nature of human activity, which is what social constructionism in its myriad forms today proposes to do.

2.4 Basic principles

Although there is a wide and often disparate variety of social constructionist work available in the literature (e.g. Clapham, 2009; Cromby & Nightingale, 1999; Fearon & Laitin, 2000; Marston, 2000; Stam, 2001), they all adhere to and are informed by the following assumptions (Burr, 1995; Clapham, 2009): 1) a critical stance towards taken-for-granted knowledge; 2) the historical and cultural specificity of knowledge; 3) knowledge is sustained by social processes; 4) knowledge and social action go together.

2.4.1 A critical stance toward taken-for-granted knowledge

Social constructionism differentiates itself from traditional psychological approaches in its rejection of essentialist, positivist, realist perspectives of reality, knowledge, and human nature (for a discussion of innate traits versus socially imposed see Mallon, 2007; Owen, 1995). Social constructionism challenges the realist assumption that there exists an objective “truth” out there in the world and that the aim of scientific endeavour is to discover this truth (Hoffman, 1995). Instead, social constructionism argues against this by asserting that there is no essential nature or objective truth out there in the sense that these things are considered to be inevitable or incapable (even impossible) to be other than what it is (Hacking, 1999). Far from denying the existence or “reality” of things, social constructionism suggests that things (in the broadest sense of the word) need not be as they are and what we know should not be taken for granted as being the only way for things to be.

2.4.2 The historical and cultural specificity of knowledge

Social constructionism suggests that what we know is a product of history and culture (Burr, 1995; Clapham, 2009; Cromby & Nightingale, 1999; Mallon, 2007; Raskin, 2002) and that

(19)

18 this should be taken into account, rather than dismissed as it has been by “objective” scientific inquiry. This then also relates to what should be the focus of psychological research. Although language and discourse are considered to be of paramount importance in the construction of our daily reality, focusing exclusively on language or discourse narrows the scope and does not take the historical and cultural influences into account. It is recommended that a broader approach such as social constructionist grounded theory be implemented in order to incorporate the context of the individual. Language should not be divorced from the set of social practices wherein it is employed and of which it is therefore an essential part, though of limited use when considered outside and separate from the broader context (Potter, 1996). Furthermore, the historical and cultural influence on the interviewer and researcher also plays a role in the construction process of the interview itself and this reflexivity also plays an important role in social constructionist research. Where traditional psychological perspectives situates the researcher as an objective observer of the phenomenon, social constructionism recognises the reflexive relationship between the researcher and the research where the phenomenon under inquiry is “constructed, or even autonomously invented, by “scientific” inquirers who are, simultaneously, participants in their worlds” (Steier, 1991, p.1). Social constructionist research is characterised by this reflexivity and the incorporation, rather than the denial, of the subjectivity of the researcher in the research process (e.g. Iversen, Gergen, & Fairbanks II, 2005).

2.4.3 Reality, knowledge and social processes

In their work, The social construction of reality, Berger and Luckmann (1976) proposed that what is “most real” can be found in the “here and now” of face-to-face interaction in our body and in the present, or rather that we “experience everyday life in terms of differing degrees of closeness and remoteness, both spatially and temporally” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 22). This face-to-face interaction is mediated primarily through language, “which

(20)

19 may be defined as a system of vocal signs, [and] is the most important sign system of human society” (Berger & Luckmann, 1976, p. 35), but while language has its origin in face-to-face interaction, it can also be detached from it. It is in this sense that language makes available meanings that are not necessarily available to the “here and now” subjectivity – our ability to refer to past events and speculate about future events or even hypothetical situations, places or people. They go on to propose that if everyday life is structured both spatially and temporally, which suggests continuity, then it follows that instead of interpreting stimulus anew every time it occurs, these meanings are accumulated and “stored” for future reference. Language, therefore, becomes the repository of common-sense knowledge which allows for mutual understanding and sharing of meaning between individuals, but also between places and times (Gergen & Davis, 2012; Raskin, 2002). This process is referred to as institutionalisation (Berger & Luckmann, 1976).

According to Berger and Luckmann (1976) all human activity is subject to habitualisation (p. 50), which implies that these activities may be repeated or transposed to other situations in the future, which then implies that it becomes another “item” in the store of common-sense knowledge. The meaning of actions, which through habituation have become available as common-sense knowledge, happens through reciprocation – it is shared and repeated by at least two individuals. These institutions have historicity in that they are products of a specific history (Mallon, 2007) and by definition imply control over human conduct by determining that one form of conduct becomes preferred over the hypothetical existence of a myriad other possibilities (Berger & Luckmann, 1976). These patterns of conduct, or institutions, become “the way it is” or “the way it is done” for future generations. This continued repetition allows these institutions to become crystallised and thereby experienced as “possessing a reality of their own, a reality that confronts the individual as an external and coercive fact” (Berger &

(21)

20 Luckmann, 1976, p. 55). This process was formalised by Berger and Luckmann (1976, cited in Burr, 1995) in what they refer to as three moments: 1) externalisation, referring to how persons act upon the world and thereby create some artefact or practice; 2) this artefact or practice then becomes an “object” of consciousness to the people in that society with a factual existence or truth of its own outside of any individual, which is referred to as objectivation; 3) and this “object” is then internalised by the people in that society as being part of the way it is.

As to how actions are externalised as artefacts or practice can be answered by considering the performative nature of language, the way language is used to do things (Burr, 1995), or in other words, instead of expressing internal states, language should be considered as intentional, socially directed behaviour (Wetherell & Potter, cited in Burr, 1995). From this perspective, language is a tool which individuals may employ to achieve certain ends (Stibbe, 2001). One way of doing so is as repertoires, (Burr, 1995) or discourses, which are social resources that provide different ways of speaking about things in order to achieve a particular purpose. Gergen (1989, cited in both Burr, 1995; and Cromby & Nightingale, 1999) refers to “warranting voice” which entails utilising socially acceptable discourses or repertoires according to the context which constructs their account of an action (or inaction) as being morally justifiable. Potter and Wetherell (1987, cited in Burr, 1995) emphasise that such linguistic practices are more strongly tied in with the particular society and context than the individualistic account suggested by Gergen, which posits that the multitude of available discourses (Raskin, 2002) exists so that the individual may draw upon the most favourable account (Stibbe, 2001). Considering that Berger and Luckmann (1966) stated that what is most real is the “here and now” or our bodily and temporal presence, it follows that a narrative of self would develop to account for minor variations over time in order to sustain

(22)

21 cohesion of self, and that it is within this narrative of self that particular discourses must “fit” in order to be utilised by an individual.

Narratives of subjective experience are first and foremost articulated linguistically (e.g. Boiger & Mesquita, 2012). According to Harré (as cited in Burr, 1995), it is the implicit assumptions of self, inherent in language, or rather in grammar (Quigley, 2001), that provides the framework for an individual to understand his or her subjective experience (Boiger & Mesquita, 2012) and this is something that develops along with the child’s acquisition of language. Our subjective experience is then further interpreted through a narrative structure (Burr, 1995) due, as stated previously, to the individual’s need for temporal continuity. Both Gergen and Gergen and Sarbin (cited in Burr, 1995) agree that this narrative construction does not happen exclusively intra-subjectively, but rather inter-subjectively in that a solitary individual cannot “mean” anything – anything that is said or done only has meaning when it is supplemented by a response from someone else (e.g. Fearon & Laitin, 2000). The supplement in itself also only attains meaning when it is further supplemented, thereby framing a context for understanding the exchange (Gergen, 2003). Therefore, the ability to mean something is not a property of a singular individual, but rather a property of relationships – whether between individuals or between the individual and institutions (Boiger & Mesquita, 2012; Cromby & Nightingale, 1999; Gergen, 2003; Owen, 1995; Raskin, 2002). If the logic is extended, then it follows that meaning is generated through patterns of action that are intertwined with modes of discourse that together establish the frame of reference for a particular context (Fearon & Laitin, 2000; Gergen, 1999), which then provides us with daily practices and readily available language to go with it (Stibbe, 2001). As Mead (cited in Gergen, 1999) and the symbolic interactionist school of thought suggested, it is through role-taking that we become conscious of ourselves. As these practices and roles

(23)

22 form part of an established pattern, we come to develop a sense of who we are by virtue of how others respond to our actions (Gergen, 1999). Thus, we are all quite thoroughly interrelated because we draw the framework of what gives us a sense of self from others (Gergen, 1999; Gergen & Davis, 2012; Mallon, 2007; Raskin, 2002). The implication for identity construction and general meaning-making is considered to be something that is co-constructed between individuals via language. The meaning and sense of self that is constructed in this manner is as a project that never quite reaches completion as every day and every interaction that occur provide additional information that must either be incorporated within the sense of self or rejected as something that does not “fit” the individual. This captures what is known as the micro context (Hoffman, 1995) functioning of discourse, where “people use language to coordinate their actions and to accomplish things” (Witkin, 2012, p. 26). The macro context (Hoffman, 1995), on the other hand, is seen as “a system of representation that shapes beliefs, meanings, and their expression” (Witkin, 2012, p. 27). From this perspective, discourse is not neutral, but rather “asserts a preferred version of the world, one that disqualifies competing versions” (Miller, 2008, quoted in Witkin, 2012, p. 28) and therefore has to do with power and being part of the system which sustains power. As is demonstrated above, knowledge is sustained by social processes or the three moments as argued by Berger and Luckmann (1976). Social constructionism locates meaning, reality, and what we generally consider to be the truth, not within individuals but rather within the reciprocal interaction between individuals, between individuals and institutions, and between institutions (Boiger & Mesquita, 2012; Cromby & Nightingale, 1999; Gergen, 2003; Owen, 1995; Raskin, 2002). While traditional psychological research sought to quantify the “inner world” or certain mental states of individuals, social constructionism suggests that these mental states are merely the artefacts of inter-subjective interaction. The focus of social constructionist psychological research should not be on the “inner world” or mental states of

(24)

23 individuals, but rather on the social practices and processes between individuals through which they are constructed and thereby rendered meaningful (Durrheim, 1997). Furthermore, social constructionist research does not aim to produce causal explanations of psychological phenomena. Instead, the focus is on the discursive processes and patterns of interaction through which individuals construct their reality (Boiger & Mesquita, 2012). Where traditional psychological approaches viewed language as essentially a medium of communication and a vehicle for thought, social constructionism views language as a precondition for thought as well as being a form of social action in itself (Burr, 1995). Another differentiating aspect as proposed by Sarbin and Kitsuse (1994), is the underlying narrative structure of constructionist accounts, which focuses on the coherence of a narrative about phenomena in their natural contexts. The use of the narrative form is based on the social constructionist view of language and by extension the use of participants’ stories as the raw material for research: “members of a collectivity (ordinary people) convey their constructions of the social world through narrative to fellow members, to professional analysts, and even to self” (Sarbin & Kitsuse, 1994, p. 8).

2.4.4 Knowledge and social action go together

Social constructions of “things” are not merely our ideas regarding these “things,” they also shape the actions that go with them. For instance, the social construction of “I” determines what “I” am capable of doing. Furthermore, as our constructions change, the repertoire of available actions change accordingly (Burr, 1995).

2.5 Critique

In the course of the 50 years of social constructionism’s presence in the various fields of research and practice, many have levelled critique against it (e.g. Maze, 2001; Stam, 2001). The main point of criticism against social constructionism lies in the fact that, unlike

(25)

24 traditional psychological approaches, it is anti-realist. Social constructionism is criticised for its lack of incorporating the material and for dismissing the positivist and empiricist disciplines out of hand. In this line of argument, social constructionism is accused of denying the existence or reality of reality (as in the objective, concrete, physical, and scientifically “proven” world). While both realist and social constructionist theories agree that knowledge is a social or cultural and historical product, Shotter (1993) argues that the realism versus relativism debate is a problem of internal logic where the one approach, according to its dictums, cannot accept the validity or claims of the other:

The practices of the sciences generate their own rational criteria in terms of which theory is accepted or rejected. The crucial point is that it is possible for these criteria to be rational precisely because on realist terms, there is a world that exists independently of cognising experience. Since our theories are constitutive of the known world but not of the world, we may always be wrong, but not anything goes. (Manicas & Secord, 1983, quoted in Shotter, 1993, p. 97).

Liebrucks (2001) supports this argument by suggesting that because the subject matter of psychology is a social artefact, it cannot be adequately analysed within natural scientific terms. Soffer (2001) also offered the perspective that the social is in fact the embodiment of sensate experience in that it is already relational before it becomes social in terms of interpersonal interaction. Soffer (2001) presents the intertwining of embodiment and social as an answer to the anti-realism and anti-materiality claims made against social constructionism (see also Iversen, et al., 2005). For social constructionists, it is not a question of identifying what is objectively real. Instead it is based on the assumption that what is considered to be real is real and rather asks why this particular reality is more valid than any of its alternatives. Social constructionism challenges the assumption that our reality is inevitable (Hacking,

(26)

25 1999). Cromby and Nightingale (1999) support this line of argument by commenting on how certain discourses are implemented to regulate human behaviour within institutions (see also Grint, 2005).

Discourse is always already situated in a material world; it is always already the product of embodied beings. This means that we simply cannot construct the world any old way we choose, and if we persistently attempt to do so we are ultimately more likely to come to the attention of psychiatric services than to gain academic approval. (Cromby & Nightingale, 1999, p. 9)

Therefore, the existence of neither institutions nor discourses are arbitrary and social constructionism does not, contrary to popular criticism, display relativist tendencies. Discourses shape institutions and institutions shape discourses while both are grounded in physical reality as well as in conceptual reality. Meaning and reality are processes, not products.

This introduces the next line of criticism against social constructionism as being anti-humanistic (Raskin, 2002) in that personality is seen to be a socially constructed idea and that what may one day constitute personhood may change the next day based on shifts in the social context. This criticism stems from the individualist concern with human agency and social constructionism is often accused of being unable to explain such phenomena as desires, fantasies, hopes, and wants, which are to a large extent constitutive of the choices made by individuals (Burr, 2003). These criticisms, according to social constructionism, arise due to the nature of the language in which it is expressed and the grammar that constitutes it: it is a result of a particular conception of “I” and all that “I” can linguistically and therefore really accomplish. Again, it is not that social constructionism denies the existence of the self per se,

(27)

26 but rather challenges the conception that the self is “a kind of irreducible inner reality represented by words like cognitions or the emotions” (Hoffman, 1995, p. 10). The social constructionist argument is that what we now “know” as the “self” is a product of our history and culture, rather than being something that exists objectively or as being the essentialist truth of human existence. The self has been made to be “real,” but it could have been different had history followed a different path. This is demonstrable with the shift in emotion studies from a universalist – everywhere the same – perspective to the more recent exploration of emotions. This consists of regarding emotions as products of social interactions and relationships and that its construction is an on-going process. Therefore, our ability to make meaning of our changing contexts is made possible by the responsiveness of our emotional processes to the dynamic and changing social environment (Boiger & Mesquita, 2012). While researchers do not deny that similarities in the expression of emotion exists, the argument instead revolves around the issue of whether or not the phenomena known as emotions exist objectively outside of human interaction. The question is whether it is inevitable, or if it exists as is because of our social interaction, as tools of communication. Extending this line of criticism, social constructionism has also shown to be unable to explain why, even when critical awareness of discourses and their implication for identity is present, individuals still find themselves unable to adopt an alternative (Burr, 2003). This is answered by the quote given above by Cromby and Nightingale (1999). The argument is that the macro conceptualisation of discourse, that relates to power, suggests that change is not merely possible by dint of choice as the discourses that sustain the system that makes things “the way it is” are not a product of individuals. The interaction between individuals, institutions, and history together produce the discourses which sustain them. This is generally also referred to as the “individual versus society” debate where the question revolves around which came first: the implication being that one existed first and produced the second (Burr, 2003). Burr

(28)

27 (2003, citing Giddens, 1984) offers a solution to this question by suggesting that the dichotomy is a construction, a particular way of thinking about society and about the individual, and that this construction needs to change rather than the theory of social constructionism itself. Burr (2003) also refers back to Berger and Luckmann (1976), arguing that the three processes they described suggest that the relationship between the individual and society is a dialectical process rather than a conflict between two pre-existing entities – the question should not be which came first, because according to social constructionism, the point is moot as one exists because of and in conjunction with the other. In conclusion, social construction denies neither reality nor human agency, but demonstrates that things are the way they are because certain patterns of interaction and their accompanying discourses have become institutionalised. In other words, our reality is not inevitable, change is possible, but not necessarily easy.

2.6 Research implications

This section highlights some of the important implications of using social constructionism as a theoretical departure point for my study: Social constructionism argues for a broad conceptualisation and consideration of the phenomenon under study in order to capture the influencing factors and to acknowledge the complex intricacies that comprise human behaviour and interaction. Language and interpersonal interaction are the combined site of meaning-making. With specific regard to the present study, social constructionist theory proposes that ideas around fatherhood and what it entails to be a good father are fluid concepts (Makusha, et al., 2013; Seidman, 2004) informed by, for example, the particular culture and popular culture, beliefs and traditions as well as the religion of the individual, and the relationships within which they are located (e.g. Greaves, 2000; Grint, 2005; Guess, 2006; Kyle & Chick, 2007; Marston, 2000; Schäfer, 2007; Takao, 2004). What is expected of fathers has changed somewhat over the years, but these assumptions are almost always

(29)

28 naturalised and rationalised and made part of the common sense of the society by and in which it is constructed (Seidman, 2004). It also holds that each individual has a unique construction of the ideal father, though elements will overlap between members of one community.

According to social constructionism, everything is a construction. Therefore, “low-income community” is also a construction consisting of a particular constellation of ideas and criteria that allows for a particular community to be denoted as “low-income.” Throughout this thesis I refer to “low-income community” in a way that may seem essentialist and contradicting my claim of being a social constructionist. I persist in doing so because the construction of low-income community and everything associated with living in such a community has an influence on the construction of fatherhood of the men and women who live in that community. This is consistent with one of the basic principles of social constructionism, namely that of the historical and cultural specificity of knowledge, discussed earlier in this chapter. The purpose is to situate the reader in the specific context or frame of reference within which this thesis operates. The constructions through which we make sense of and order the world, is all pervasive, permeating every aspect of our lives. For this reason they must be acknowledged and held accountable for the influence and impact this has on our day to day activities and our every thought. Considering that many studies do not differentiate between Black or African South Africans and Coloured South Africans (e.g. Airhihenbuwa et al., 2009; Meintjies & Hall, 2012), and that these groups may have different histories and social contexts that influence fatherhood constructions and practices, it is also necessary to broaden and focus the comprehensibility of data collected on fathers in South Africa to include all the population groups as well as the diverse family-forms that are the lived experience of the South African population.

(30)

29 Social constructionism also suggests that fatherhood constructions consist of the actions and processes, both linguistic and social, which take place within the family context. This implies that the constructions of fatherhood must be considered from the perspective of co-construction: fatherhood as constructed within and via the father-daughter relationship. In this study, we explored how both fathers and daughters construct fatherhood and the father-daughter relationship.

Lastly, Puig, Koro-Ljungberg, and Echevarria-Doan (2008) emphasise a correspondence between the epistemology and the research methods. Qualitative research methods are commonly used in social constructionist research (Burr, 2003), as it offers the best fit with the epistemology underlying social constructionist theory. Qualitative research methods allow for exploratory research that is not based on a quantitative type research question (Greaves, 2001). This study focuses on the construction of fatherhood of fathers and daughters within a specific community and therefore calls for a qualitative approach.

2.8 Conclusion

In this chapter I have presented the social constructionist a framework which I utilized to approach and conceptualize my research. Based on this framework, I conceptualized fatherhood as a social construct, co-constructed in the dyadic relationship between fathers and their adolescent daughters. The construction of fatherhood was therefore, seen to be influenced by the psychosocial context of the individuals concerned. This study is also the product of a socially constructed process, namely that between the researcher, her supervisor, the participants, the interviewers, and the broader literature on fatherhood. The preliminary literature review, is presented in chapter three.

(31)

30

Chapter three: Literature review

According to Charmaz (2006) the “literature review and theoretical frameworks are ideological sites in which you claim, locate, evaluate, and defend your position” (p. 163). Classic grounded theory recommends that a literature review only be conducted after the analysis of the data has been completed in order that previous research not influence the analysis, also known as “received theory” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 165). However, a social constructionist informed grounded theory methodology takes into account that the researcher has a specific personal and academic background and that it is impossible to divorce oneself from that background. A researcher’s preconceived ideas regarding her/his research is an inevitable part of the research process. Therefore, as something of a compromise between what is practically expected of students by academic institutions and the ideological preferences of the founders of grounded theory methodology, Charmaz (2006) recommends taking a critical stance towards the literature. This implies that previous findings and theories are questioned and treated as problematic rather than as “the” truth. The aim of the literature review is to give an account of the literature or “conversation” on the research topic in order to indicate where this particular study fits in and adds to the conversation. This approach allows for the conducting of a preliminary literature review (as was necessitated for the writing of a proposal). However, previous literature is also included in the analysis and the discussion in order to show where and how the findings of this study agree or differ from previous findings. In accordance with Charmaz’s guidelines above, the literature review presented here is a preliminary one and is by no means exhaustive. It gives an overview of how the construct fatherhood has been shaped and changed over time and context and how this has made the current understanding of “fatherhood” possible. The following themes will

(32)

31 be addressed in this review: gender and notions of masculinity, fatherhood and masculinity, ideal fatherhood, and lastly, the literature on fathers and adolescent daughters.

3.2 Gender and notions of masculinity

The most salient aspect of social life that influences the construct of fatherhood is that of gender and the attendant issues it raises with specific regards to the father-daughter relationship. I base my discussion of masculinity on Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity because of its past and continued use by scholars addressing the topic of gender in South Africa (e.g. Field, 2001; Lindegger & Maxwell, 2007; Salo, et al., 2010; Shefer, et al., 2007). Connell (1987; 1992; 1993; 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) developed his theory of hegemonic masculinity in order to explain how the gender order is established and maintained on a daily basis in the form of a hierarchy, where a particular masculine identity claims the hegemonic position in relation to other masculinities and femininities which are by definition subordinate. Hegemonic masculinity does not need to correspond to the actual personalities and characteristics of the majority of men – in fact, it rarely corresponds to more than 5% of the population of men at any given time in any given place (Connell, 1995, p. 79). Furthermore, this ascendancy is sustained by the institutionalisation of men’s dominance over women, and as such the hegemonic masculinity must personify a successful collective strategy in order to sustain its institutionalisation. This understanding accounts for the everyday jostling and contestation that actually occurs in social life, as well as the changes witnessed throughout history. The hegemonic form of masculinity adapts and transforms in order to adjust to new situations and contexts and continues to be successful by integrating the challenges levelled against it in the collective strategy. Connell (1992) contends that this hierarchy is a reflection and production of the social dynamic – the struggle for resources and power via the exclusion or incorporation, and the splitting and reconstitution of gender forms. Understood in this way, masculinity is seen to be “political” in the conventional sense that it

(33)

32 “constitutes the struggle for scarce resources, the mobilisation of power and the pursuit of tactics on behalf of a particular interest” (Connell, 1993, pp. 603, para 1). The models that occupy the hegemonic position express an ideal; it provides men with a set of protocols which allows them access to the hegemonic subject position. “Protocols” formalize the rules for interpersonal relations with women and with other men. Hegemonic masculinity, therefore, embodies the “currently most honoured way of being a man, it require[s] all other men to position themselves in relation to it” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, pp. 832).

Connell’s (1987; 1992; 1993; 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) theory of hegemonic masculinity offers a conceptual framework for understanding the gender order and its accompanying social dynamics with regards to South African men and masculinity, and in particular the target population of the present study. The “ideal” man refers to a specific masculinity, not the position of masculinity in the hierarchy of power. The ideal man, also known as “the unblushing male,” is the man all the women want and all the men want to be. This is also the imagined archetype against whom any individual male is measured by other males as well as by females (Shefer, et al., 2007). For this population, the two traditional key elements of the dominant mode of masculinity is heterosexuality and fearlessness, or risk-taking. Indeed, a “real” man is not a sissy; he is defined by having sex with women and fears nothing (Shefer, et al., 2007). Expressing emotions is traditionally associated with weakness – something which is undeniably considered a threat to masculinity – and must be avoided, as “a weak man is no man at all” (Seidler, 2005, pp. 190). According to Zulu-speaking adolescent boys living in rural KwaZulu-Natal, the predominate male characteristics for the older generation, and which the adolescent boys reportedly sought to avoid in themselves, include excessive consumption of alcohol, beating of their wives, physical and emotional abuse of children, as well as the pursuit of other women, both married and single (Lindegger

(34)

33 & Maxwell, 2007). The more positive characteristics pursued by these adolescent boys include being trustworthy, providing for families, leadership, advising others, being respected by others, and caring. Other views of manhood reported by the participants include: the responsibility as head of household, the privilege of having his own social life outside of the family context, heterosexuality, providing for the family, and a need for sexual relations (Lindegger & Maxwell, 2007). These boys believed that a male has a duty towards and authority over females. Being a man is spoken of mostly in terms of obligations and social roles, and no mention is made of biology, which is in fact accepted as “self-evident truths” (Lindegger & Maxwell, 2007). The implication is that men can adopt hegemonic masculinity when it is desirable to do so, but these same men can also distance themselves from hegemonic masculinity in other situations when it is not desirable (Lindegger & Maxwell, 2007). This supports the argument that hegemonic masculinity does not refer to a particular type of man, but is instead a way for men to position themselves through discursive practices (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005).

3.3 Fatherhood and masculinity

A discussion of fatherhood is almost impossible and also incomplete without a discussion of masculinity and how it informs notions of “ideal” fatherhood (for example, Brandth & Kvande, 1998; Cooper, 2000; Donaldson, 1993; Doucet, 2004; Kirkman, Rosenthal, & Feldman, 2001; Lisak, 1991; Rochlen, McKelly, Suizzo & Scaringi, 2008; Russel, 1978; Silverstein, Auerbach, & Levant, 2002). While a full discussion of the shifts in trends that have occurred throughout history is outside the scope of the present study, suffice to say that these shifts illustrate the fluid nature of the concept and thereby our understanding of what it means to be a man and a father (e.g. Coltrane & Park, 1998; Edley & Wetherell, 1996; Lamb, 2000; Liebman & Abell, 2000; Makusha, et al., 2013). The most recent trend is known as the “era of paternal rediscovery,” which began in the 1970s (Levant, Slattery, & Loiselle, 1987)

(35)

34 and continues into the present time. This period is marked by an ambivalent approach characterised by two movements. The first refers to the more “traditional” or “conservative” viewpoint in which the importance of the provider role and values such as respect for authority and moral leadership are championed (Lamb, 2000). The embodiment of this approach is in the “Breadwinner” of the Industrial period (Lamb, 2000). It was during this period that the separate spheres ideology developed, that essentially positioned the man outside the home at work and wife as the homemaker (Lamb, 2000). The second movement is more “liberal.” It champions the importance of the economic milieu and stresses the benefits for women associated with discarding patriarchal family traditions in favour of a more individualistic and democratic family form, where fathers play an active role in family life (Lamb, 2000). This second movement is also known as the “New Man” (McMahon, 1999), while the first movement is referred to more often as the traditional masculine ideal. Between the 1970s and the present day, a central argument has emerged from masculinity and fatherhood research, the gist of which lies in whether there is a change in paternal parenting practices, what is the nature of this change, and whether or not there should be a change at all. The traditional masculine ideal, as stated previously, generally favours the maintenance of the status quo in favour of patriarchy and traditional gender roles. The more liberal approach argues that changes are indeed taking place and that this “New Man” or “New Father” will assume the hegemonic position in the gender hierarchy. These changes include, for the “New Man” more equitable gender practices in general, while the “New Father” is associated with greater paternal involvement in childcare. The latter consists of a joint effort to work and care for the family. It implies that women are no longer expected to work the so-called second shift in addition to full-time employment, because their men also assist in the day-to-day caretaking of children (such as feeding and bathing) as well as in general household chores (such as washing the dishes or doing the washing).

(36)

35 While the debate between these two extremes has not yet been resolved, several studies have attempted to reconcile the two by determining if they really represent opposite ends of a continuum or whether one is the next step in the evolution of fatherhood and masculinity. An example of a study in favour of the traditional masculine ideal is Donaldson (1993), who explored the relation between hegemonic masculinity and fatherhood. Donaldson (1993) suggested that within such a paradigm, fatherhood affirms hegemonic masculinity, whilst the actual practice of parenting is seen as undermining masculinity. The opposing position to this argument (e.g. Henwood & Procter, 2003; Strauss & Goldberg, 1999) can be summarised by Cooper (2000), who argued that “nerds” are the modern man, in touch with their emotions, not sexist and proud of it – essentially the “New Man.” His findings were based on the example of Silicone Valley, the southern region of the San Francisco Bay Area in Northern California in the United States where many of the world’s largest technology corporations and thousands of small start-ups are located. This “New man” is seen as the modern hero, suggesting, rather hopefully, that they are “soon” to occupy the hegemonic position in masculinity (Cooper, 2000).

Accounts of changes in paternal parenting practices were optimistic initially. Eventually, it came to be realised that the apparent changes were overstated (Harris & Morgan, 1991; Richter & Morrell, 2006); at least in the academic arena. McMahon (1999) pointed out that general historical accounts indicate that men’s domestic involvement has been declining since the Industrial Revolution, stating that this apparent change is more the result of rhetoric than actual, grass-roots change occurring in fact. By rhetoric, McMahon (1999) referred to the labelling of low house- and childcare involvement as “traditional,” which then invites the assumption that this was typical in the past. Furthermore, by labelling some men as “non-traditional” because of their doing “somewhat more” housework and calling them “pioneers of change,” invited the assumption of a change in practice occurring at a grass-roots level. At

(37)

36 the core of the issue lies the relationship fatherhood has with the masculine identity. As Donaldson (1993) argued, fatherhood affirms masculinity, which counts in favour of the “New Father.” The “New Man,” on the other hand, is considered to be “too feminine” and therefore no longer a “true” man (McMahon, 1999). The “New Father” affirms masculinity because fatherhood in itself implies a successful and continuing heterosexual relationship with the mother, in addition to the more obvious fact of successful reproduction already achieved. The “New Father” can be enthralled and captivated by his baby without being scorned as a wimpy, feminised “New Man.” However, the “New Father” is not without dilemmas of its own. Tensions regarding the masculinity of the “New Father” arose already in the early years of the “era of paternal rediscovery” (Levant, et al., 1987), a fear which was addressed in several popular advice texts at the time:

Some men fear they will simply become surrogate mothers, losing their male identity. This is just not the case, as any baby or toddler knows. When a man takes over the “mothering” role it has a distinctly different flavour (Roeber, 1987 quoted in McMahon, 1999, pp. 134). The father is not a substitute mother; he has his own unique contribution to make to his child’s development (Sears, 1988 quoted in McMahon, 1999, pp. 134).

Another argument levelled against the proponents of the “New Father” stated that men should stick to what they know and that the division of labour is part of the natural order (McMahon, 1999, emphasis added). The argument went on to state that the effect of the rhetoric of the “New Father” had been to “devalue men’s traditional value to the family” (McMahon, 1999, p. 148) as the breadwinner and that this has, furthermore, led to the crisis of masculinity.

(38)

37 The so-called crisis of masculinity has also been a focus of research in South Africa, particularly due to the prevalence of domestic and interpersonal violence as well as the high incidence rate of rape (e.g. Posel, 2005; Robins, 2006; Sikwegiya, Jewkes, & Morrell, 2007; Thornberry, Smith & Howard, 1997). The “New Man” or “New Father” debate also has its place in the South African context (e.g. Datta, 2007; Dworkin, Colvin, Hatcher, & Peacock, 2012; Shefer, et al., 2008; Smit, 2006). Furthermore, gender ideology is a particularly important aspect of fatherhood literature in South Africa due in no small part to gender-based violence and the AIDS pandemic and its influence on household structures (e.g. Lazarus, Tonsing, Ratele, & van Niekerk, 2011; Macleod, 2007; Morrell & Jewkes, 2011; Posel, 2005; Robins, 2006; Sathiparsed, Taylor, & Dlamini, 2008; Sikwegiya, et al., 2007; Schneider, Cockcroft, & Hook, 2008; Thornberry, Smith, & Howard, 1997). Violence appears to be a salient factor in the dynamics of the gender hierarchy in South Africa. Sathiparsed, Taylor, and Dlamini (2008) conducted research in the Ugu District - a typical rural area in KwaZulu-Natal characterised by poor health, education, and welfare facilities. They conducted focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with grade eleven, Zulu-speaking, rural, male youth attending three secondary schools in the district. Their findings include support for the dominant constructions of manhood in general, though evidence of the contesting of traditional patriarchal practices were also found (Sathiparsed, et al., 2008). However, traditional gender roles were still found to be the norm (Sathiparsed, et al., 2008). Although several of the participants expressed support for more equitable gender relations, the authors express their uncertainty with regards to whether or not these beliefs will translate into a change in actual practice in years to come. Many are positive about the state of fatherhood in South Africa as it relates to gender ideology (e.g. Morrell & Richter, 2006; Ratele et al., 2012; Swartz & Bhana, 2009; Van den Berg, et al., 2013). Local research on fatherhood indicate that although an expectation of low father involvement exists, many fathers and

Fathers and daughters construction of fatherhood in one low-income, semi-rural, Coloured community

Table of Contents

Chapter one: Introduction

Chapter two: Theoretical framework

Chapter three: Literature review